The Brian Hoyer thread...

[MalTalm]

(1)I think you're skewing the analysis when you include QB's who are better than Hoyer in that 25 attempts/game analysis, and (2)I'd say Roethlisberger, Wilson, and Kaepernick were all better than Hoyer. That's important, because if your comparators are reduced to Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer, then you have to look to see how good their defenses and running games were so you know where the bar is set to win with a QB that good.

Except when you look through the past 20 years in the NFL, there are plenty of examples of teams which have limited their quarterback in attempts per game throughout seasons with success. Hoyer can not be very effective as the main weapon in the offense. Yet, that does not bar him from being capable of winning in this league. There are other ways, Seattle, Houston, and San Francisco have figured that out...

And to the second point, I'd agree, but by the total production the gap is very small. (Again, with an exception for Roethlisberger recently, as he has elevated his play significantly at this point in his career).

By definition,

10 out of 32 teams have top 10 quarterbacks, so it simply cannot be as hard as having the best defense in the entire league, which was the case for Dilfer and Johnson when they won their Super Bowls.

Yes, but the life span for elite quarterbacks is pushing 20 years. You could go 3-5 consecutive drafts without producing a single "top 10" QB, and you aren't likely to find one in free agency, so yes, I'd say it is very hard to find a top 10 QB in this league.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Okay, so we've done a bad job drafting QB's. Problem is, we've generally done a bad job drafting for other positions in the first round as well. Brown? Warren? Edwards? Richardson? Mingo? Gilbert? Why assume we'd hit on those other positions if we can't hit on QB?

The reason teams keep swinging and missing at QB's is that until you hit, you're almost guaranteed to be treading water until you do. And the alternative of just building up the rest of the team means that you've got to hit on a lot more draft picks than just QB.

Here's where your syllogism falls apart: You can only play one QB. You can draft linebackers in the second round who should just be a special teamer and a backup and they still contribute. You can draft Gilbert in the first round and he will still be valuable when the team defends four receiver sets. If a team carries more than one developmental quarterback, they are just babysitting more than one clip board holder. And again, look at where the team is now with drafted developmental QB after drafted developmental QB... what is Manziel providing right now for this playoff push with all the other injuries? And you want to do that again because Hoyer has a bad half every few weeks and Manziel didn't immediately look like a Pro Bowler?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Except when you look through the past 20 years in the NFL, there are plenty of examples of teams which have limited their quarterback in attempts per game throughout seasons with success. Hoyer can not be very effective as the main weapon in the offense. Yet, that does not bar him from being capable of winning in this league.

What does "winning in this league" actually mean? Assuming this team's goal is to actually win a Super Bowl, the relevant question when asking if Hoyer is a long-term solution is "what are the odds of a guy like him being the QB of a Super Bowl team", and as I see it, those odds are extremely long. Yes, you can "win" a majority of your games if you're a mediocre QB. But when it gets to the playoffs, you're going to be facing much more complete teams.

There are other ways, Seattle, Houston, and San Francisco have figured that out...

All of whom have QB's better than Hoyer, IMHO.

Yes, but the life span for elite quarterbacks is pushing 20 years. You could go 3-5 consecutive drafts without producing a single "top 10" QB, and you aren't likely to find one in free agency, so yes, I'd say it is very hard to find a top 10 QB in this league.

You're exaggerating, I think. The very top Manning/Brady/Rodgers kind of guys are very tough to find, but Top 10 opens up a lot more guys who are just consistently "above-average", and that group doesn't always stay constant from year to year, either, which opens it up to even more guys. Find me a three year period without a guy who was a top 10 QB for at least one season.

And the other end of this is the point I made to Keys -- we've swung and missed on guys playing a lot of positions other than QB. But to build a defense that's top 3 or so, you have to hit on a lot more picks than just a QB. It's just harder to be right that many times.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Here's where your syllogism falls apart: You can only play one QB. You can draft linebackers in the second round who should just be a special teamer and a backup and they still contribute. You can draft Gilbert in the first round and he will still be valuable when the team defends four receiver sets.

If you draft a CB or linebacker in the first round, or even high in the second, and he becomes nothing more than a special teams/backup guy, then you've missed on the pick. Yes, you can still get some value from him, but you can pick up guys much later in the draft or in FA who can give you that as well. The real value of the pick has been lost.

....And you want to do that again because Hoyer has a bad half every few weeks and Manziel didn't immediately look like a Pro Bowler?

Actually, no. I tend to agree with you that drafting a second developmental QB isn't smart. Unless they've already concluded that Manziel isn't going to be the guy because of things they've learned after they picked him, or if they think there is a true stud in the draft who clearly outclasses both Manziel and Hoyer. Absent that, I'd be okay with handing the keys to Manziel next year to see what he can do.

I was just pointing out the risks in assuming we'll "hit" on the players we choose to draft instead of a QB.

 

[The Voice]

Wait... When? And in what context?

If anyone actually thinks the Browns had a chance to get Luck from Indy, they're either making shit up or are just plain stupid. Maybe the Browns could have tanked harder, but that's a fairy tale because nobody in the NFL really tries to lose games. The Browns had a regime that wanted to win with a coach who was on the hot seat; tanking games is not ever happening in that scenario. No poster in here would do it, either, if they were involved in an NFL franchise. Wish that crap take would die.

I absolutely would and if I owned a franchise Id encourage my coaches to do so. If I was a coach of the browns I would, but any other team no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk at your local pub.

 

[AZ_]

Tanking absolutely happens, risks are not taken if your team is out of contention, decisions are made at the top knowing that the pressure to win isn't there.

It's absolutely a factor for some teams. Look no further than the 76ers organization.

 

[Randolphkeys]

If you draft a CB or linebacker in the first round, or even high in the second, and he becomes nothing more than a special teams/backup guy, then you've missed on the pick. Yes, you can still get some value from him, but you can pick up guys much later in the draft or in FA who can give you that as well. The real value of the pick has been lost.

I'm not defending poorly developed or poorly scouted picks. Nobody would. I am specifically identifying the risk you take by subtracting a top pick every other year from the players who actually see the field. I'm not in favor of drafting a depth positional player too high, I'm explaining why the Browns have crappy depth at positions which should have more drafted players in their prime.

Actually, no. I tend to agree with you that drafting a second developmental QB isn't smart. Unless they've already concluded that Manziel isn't going to be the guy because of things they've learned after they picked him, or if they think there is a true stud in the draft who clearly outclasses both Manziel and Hoyer. Absent that, I'd be okay with handing the keys to Manziel next year to see what he can do.

I was just pointing out the risks in assuming we'll "hit" on the players we choose to draft instead of a QB.

I simply don't see the modern college football system developing plug and play quarterbacks unless you are drafting #1 overall, and the Browns have shown us the past 10 years that you can be a terrible team and still win 4 games or so, missing out on that one guy who MIGHT be a top 10 QB. Other than that top 3 pick, you are developing your QB while another NFL-ready guy plays. Its a shame people thought Manziel was a plug and play QB. He isn't, few are. This is exactly how you develop a QB like Manziel who is extremely deficient in the mental part of the position. He sits, he attends QB meetings and film rooms, he learns after a season or three. That will likely continue in future drafts as well.

 

[MalTalm]

What does "winning in this league" actually mean? Assuming this team's goal is to actually win a Super Bowl, the relevant question when asking if Hoyer is a long-term solution is "what are the odds of a guy like him being the QB of a Super Bowl team", and as I see it, those odds are extremely long. Yes, you can "win" a majority of your games if you're a mediocre QB. But when it gets to the playoffs, you're going to be facing much more complete teams.



All of whom have QB's better than Hoyer, IMHO.



You're exaggerating, I think. The very top Manning/Brady/Rodgers kind of guys are very tough to find, but Top 10 opens up a lot more guys who are just consistently "above-average", and that group doesn't always stay constant from year to year, either, which opens it up to even more guys. Find me a three year period without a guy who was a top 10 QB for at least one season.

And the other end of this is the point I made to Keys -- we've swung and missed on guys playing a lot of positions other than QB. But to build a defense that's top 3 or so, you have to hit on a lot more picks than just a QB. It's just harder to be right that many times.

Let's look: (From PFF NFL Rankings)

2014 | 2013 | 2012
Peyton Manning | Peyton Manning |Peyton Manning
Tom Brady | Tom Brady | Tom Brady
Drew Brees | Drew Brees |Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers | Aaron Rodgers | Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger | Ben Roethlisberger | Ben Roethlisberger
Tony Romo | Tony Romo |Alex Smith
Philip Rivers | Philip Rivers | RGIII
Andrew Luck | Josh McCown | Russell Wilson
Carson Palmer | Russell Wilson | Matt Ryan
Alex Smith | Colin Kaepernick | Colin Kaepernick

Guys appearing every year in the top 10: Peyton, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Big Ben (all in the league for 10+ years)
Guys appearing 2 out of 3: Romo, Alex Smith, Philip Rivers, Colin Kaepernick, Russell Wilson
Guys appearing only for one year: Carson Palmer, Josh McCown, RGIII, Andrew Luck

Of the past 3 years, only 4 players have been in the league for less than 10 years: Luck, RGIII, Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick.

And as I pointed out recently, Hoyer's 2014 performance is very similar to Wilson's 2013 campaign.

What I see is that mobility into the top 10 any year is still difficult. If you want a player who can hit that threshhold just once, I'd say Hoyer has as good of a shot as someone like Josh McCown. But the numbers don't lie: The biggest key to being successful in the NFL is total snap counts under center. In the meantime, limiting the QB's impact on the game helps ensure success.

I've been beating this drum through the past 5 or so pages, but let's look again. Of the four players who have cracked this elite list who've been in the league for less than 10 years, Kaepernick and Wilson share something in common:

Wilson and Kapernick, through 2013, were limited in their attempts per game. Wilson averaged 25 attempts per game in 2013. In 2012, he threw a bit more at 24 attempts per game. The NFL Average is somewhere around 36... roughly 30% more passing for other NFL teams.

Kapernick averaged 26 A/G in both 2013 and 2014...

The other two, Luck and RGIII, are outliers. Luck is a transcendent talent, likely the next guy to enter that elite 5 player tier of QBs who rank consistently at the highest level of production year in and year out.

RGIII meanwhile appears to have been a fluke. He passed a ton in his rookie campaign and very successfully. Since then, his numbers have plummeted, and there is doubt whether he can even be a viable starter in this league.

In short: Hoyer is mediocre, and a proper offensive system can elevate this team to championship level. The QB position more than any other is seemingly judged by results: A team without a franchise QB can't win, thus a team that wins must have a franchise QB.

The entire discussion is a massive logical fallacy, but truth be told, Hoyer's production is consistent with other QBs who have succeeded at the highest level.

EDIT: Gotta find out how to make a table on this new forum

 

[CosmoKramer]

Let's look: (From PFF NFL Rankings)

2014 | 2013 | 2012
Peyton Manning | Peyton Manning |Peyton Manning
Tom Brady | Tom Brady | Tom Brady
Drew Brees | Drew Brees |Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers | Aaron Rodgers | Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger | Ben Roethlisberger | Ben Roethlisberger
Tony Romo | Tony Romo |Alex Smith
Philip Rivers | Philip Rivers | RGIII
Andrew Luck | Josh McCown | Russell Wilson
Carson Palmer | Russell Wilson | Matt Ryan
Alex Smith | Colin Kaepernick | Colin Kaepernick

Guys appearing every year in the top 10: Peyton, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Big Ben (all in the league for 10+ years)
Guys appearing 2 out of 3: Romo, Alex Smith, Philip Rivers, Colin Kaepernick, Russell Wilson
Guys appearing only for one year: Carson Palmer, Josh McCown, RGIII, Andrew Luck

Of the past 3 years, only 4 players have been in the league for less than 10 years: Luck, RGIII, Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick.

And as I pointed out recently, Hoyer's 2014 performance is very similar to Wilson's 2013 campaign.

What I see is that mobility into the top 10 any year is still difficult. If you want a player who can hit that threshhold just once, I'd say Hoyer has as good of a shot as someone like Josh McCown. But the numbers don't lie: The biggest key to being successful in the NFL is total snap counts under center. In the meantime, limiting the QB's impact on the game helps ensure success.

I've been beating this drum through the past 5 or so pages, but let's look again. Of the four players who have cracked this elite list who've been in the league for less than 10 years, Kaepernick and Wilson share something in common:

Wilson and Kapernick, through 2013, were limited in their attempts per game. Wilson averaged 16 attempts per game in 2013. In 2012, he threw a bit more at 24 attempts per game. The NFL Average is somewhere around 36... roughly 30% more passing for other NFL teams.

Kapernick averaged 26 A/G in both 2013 and 2014...

The other two, Luck and RGIII, are outliers. Luck is a transcendent talent, likely the next guy to enter that elite 5 player tier of QBs who rank consistently at the highest level of production year in and year out.

RGIII meanwhile appears to have been a fluke. He passed a ton in his rookie campaign and very successfully. Since then, his numbers have plummeted, and there is doubt whether he can even be a viable starter in this league.

In short: Hoyer is mediocre, and a proper offensive system can elevate this team to championship level. The QB position more than any other is seemingly judged by results: A team without a franchise QB can't win, thus a team that wins must have a franchise QB.

The entire discussion is a massive logical fallacy, but truth be told, Hoyer's production is consistent with other QBs who have succeeded at the highest level.

EDIT: Gotta find out how to make a table on this new forum

Wilson didn't attempt 16 passes a game a year ago, check your numbers.

And RGIII's rookie season wasn't a fluke, it was his only season he played at 100%. He ripped off a 76-yard TD run against the Vikings that year that few QBs in the history of the sport could have pulled off. Since coming back from his knee surgeries he hasn't shown anything close to the burst that made him a special talent.

 

[MalTalm]

Wilson didn't attempt 16 passes a game a year ago, check your numbers.

You are right, what the hell was I looking at?

Still, 25 attempts per game for him last year. Lowest in the NFL, and significantly below the average.

And RGIII's rookie season wasn't a fluke, it was his only season he played at 100%. He ripped off a 76-yard TD run against the Vikings that year that few QBs in the history of the sport could have pulled off. Since coming back from his knee surgeries he hasn't shown anything close to the burst that made him a special talent.

Call it what ever feels right, but this far into his young career his rookie campaign screams outlier. Yes, injuries and a change in offensive scheme both likely had a lot to do with the drop in production, but he hasn't been anywhere close to the QB he was his rookie season.

 

[brownindian]

Boy am I glad we did not give up that much to draft RG3.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Rather than expressing surprise that RGIII couldn't sustain his dual threat quarterback play for multiple seasons, try finding a running quarterback who had success for season after season without eventually focusing on becoming a pocket passer. Steve Young sat behind Montana to learn how to have pocket presence and became a guy who only ran occasionally. Same with Elway, Cunningham, VASTLY underrated McNair, and now Cam Newton.

I'm getting the idea that one thing Browns fans want more than a top ten quarterback is a Hot Tub Time Machine to take back a lot of bad ideas of the past decade.

 

[Maximus]

2014 | 2013 | 2012
Peyton Manning | Peyton Manning |Peyton Manning
Tom Brady | Tom Brady | Tom Brady
Drew Brees | Drew Brees |Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers | Aaron Rodgers | Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger | Ben Roethlisberger | Ben Roethlisberger
Tony Romo | Tony Romo |Alex Smith
Philip Rivers | Philip Rivers | RGIII
Andrew Luck | Josh McCown | Russell Wilson
Carson Palmer | Russell Wilson | Matt Ryan
Alex Smith | Colin Kaepernick | Colin Kaepernick

What I see is that mobility into the top 10 any year is still difficult.

Definitely difficult...and impossible when you lose 3 of your best offensive players(2 best weapons).

Best center in NFL...gone.
Top receiver in NFL last year...gone.
Pro Bowl Tight End...gone.

 

[AZ_]

And as I pointed out recently, Hoyer's 2014 performance is very similar to Wilson's 2013 campaign.

What I see is that mobility into the top 10 any year is still difficult. If you want a player who can hit that threshhold just once, I'd say Hoyer has as good of a shot as someone like Josh McCown. But the numbers don't lie: The biggest key to being successful in the NFL is total snap counts under center. In the meantime, limiting the QB's impact on the game helps ensure success.

No it most certainly was not.

Wilson was leaps and bounds more efficient than Hoyer, and the difference in attempts is nullified by the fact Russell Wilson had far more rushing attempts and efficiency running the football than Hoyer did.

Higher passing metrics across the board, added efficiency on the ground.

Hoyer's season doesn't even belong in the same sentence, quite frankly.

 

[CPK]

I'm getting the idea that one thing Browns fans want more than a top ten quarterback is a Hot Tub Time Machine to take back a lot of bad ideas of the past decade.

Honestly, if we are getting any type of time machine I want to go back and prevent this team from ever moving. My god the people we had on staff back then, and think - Ozzie Newsome drafting for us instead of those god damned Ravens.